Support Overthrow, Not Assassination, Of Saddam Hussein

By STEVE WILSON The Arizona Republic

The Arizona Republic He gets my vote as the most dangerous man in the world, an evil and irrational murderer with weapons of mass destruction at his fingertips.

Why wait for his next act of madness? Why not assassinate Saddam Hussein now?

Those questions are being asked more seriously these days as Saddam plays games with United Nations inspectors while sitting on a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and working on nuclear ones.

Thomas Friedman, a well-respected "New York Times" columnist, has called for taking him out, as has George Stephanopoulos, the former White House adviser.

They make a "greater good" argument, contending that assassination is warranted because of his heinous crimes, the frightening threat he poses and other lives he's likely to take.

Saddam, writes Friedman, has "absolutely no redeeming features. He has gone to war against five different countries: Israel, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. He tried to assassinate former President George Bush. He murdered his closest relatives. He has used poison gas against Iran and the Kurds, and Scud missiles against Israel. He has built a series of palaces for himself since the Gulf War, while Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition."

Rubbing him out, says Stephanopoulos, would be "one of the extremely rare circumstances where killing can be a humanitarian act that saves far more lives than it risks."

By giving in to "misplaced moral squeamishness," he says, more Americans stand to be killed in a subsequent military conflict. If air attacks are launched on Iraq in hopes of hurting Saddam, innocent civilians will die without much chance of harming him.

One who disagrees is U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He lists three reasons: (1) Terrorist reprisals. Getting into the assassination business would mean open season on Americans. Terrorists look for excuses; this would be a doozy.

(2) The high risk of failure. Our government's bungling efforts to kill Fidel Castro in the 1960s, and the Israelis' recently botched attempt on the life of Khaled Meshaal, a leader of the Palestinian group Hamas, make the point that assassinations aren't simple. Saddam would be no easy target.

(3) The issue of immorality. As the world's superpower, America's moral conduct in international affairs has enormous influence. If we rationalize an assassination, if we say there are times when we can behave like Mafiosi, we should expect other nations will, too.

More to think about: How could we justify bumping off Saddam when America has stood by and watched other leaders slaughter innocents by the thousands? Why didn't we kill ethnic cleanser Radovan Karadzic? Where do we draw the line?

Besides, it's illegal. An executive order signed by President Ford in 1978 says no one employed by or acting on behalf of the U.S. government "shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

Could we cite a "national security" reason to get around the law? Probably. But if we want this nation's word to mean anything to the rest of the world, breaking our own law isn't the way to do it.

A smarter approach would be to do more to assist dissidents and political opponents within Iraq. Despite Saddam's firm grip on the government and the military, a large percentage of Iraqis don't support his dictatorship. Six years of economic sanctions have hurt the people and his standing. Given the right resources, a popular resistance movement could overthrow him. If somebody slits his throat in the process, all the better.

I can see why people want to assassinate Saddam. He's a vicious, unconscionable miscreant who deserves an agonizing death. A part of me would love to read about the CIA pulling off an ingenious, high-tech hit.

But I fear the next big stories would be a terrorist bomb exploding on a U.S. airliner and the murder of top-ranking American officials. The world is uncivilized enough. We don't need to up the ante.